It doesn't matter whether they are the same KIND or not
... they are both recreations therefore both entitled to the same consideration
in terms of their use of public resource.

If that were true then all recreations would be equal, which
they clearly are not. Different recreations have to be managed
differently.

Stop dodging the point. You are arguing that one recreation is superior to another, which you can do, but what you can't do is refute that they are both recreations and, hence, one is not more axiomatically valid than the other. You keep trying to secure a privileged position for hiking but it is, in fact, just another recreation.

I'm not listening to what people say ... I'm watching the
video links which you posted !* The evidence of my eyes is clear ... hardly
any interaction ... lots of open space with no people.

Videos are like statistics. They have to be interpreted. What
people say is the only thing that matters. The videos are there for the mentally
impaired.

YOU posted the video links Ed ! Are you mentally impaired ? Why do you keep posting evidence that refutes your own positions ?

Powerful brakes slow you down very quickly.

A bike therefore appearing to be travelling too fast to stop is, in fact,
perfectly able to do so before impacting a hiker, equestrian or other trail
user.

Get it now ?

Nope, I will never get it because disparate speeds on trails
are extremely dangerous, brakes or no brakes.

I think you'll find that, provided you can stop within the distance that you can see to be clear, that there is no issue whatsoever with disparate speeds. Why do you care what speed I'm doing elsewhere as long as I pass you carefully and slowly and don't put you at risk ?